Teaching organizations how to learn. Part 2 – Conditions for learning

As discussed in a previous post, Driscoll (1994) outlines five conditions for learning (p.382-3). Very much like the multiple approaches and interpretations that exist in constructivism, a number of conditions must be met for the approach to be implemented. The conditions are:

1. Providing complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity. Constructivists argue that learners should learn to solve the types of complex problem they will face in real life. Learning how to do this is difficult unless complex and authentic learning environments are available to the learners.
2. Providing for social negotiation as an integral part of learning. Bruner (1986) explains that learning is a cultural interchange between group members. Collaboration creates an opportunity for learners to share their understandings with others and to have others do the same with them. This provides multiple perspectives to each learner, and this negotiation process between peers should lead to enhanced understanding.
3. Support multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. Because learning skills, behaviors and knowledge can be diverse and complex, constructivists believe that to achieve complete understanding the learner must examine the material from multiple perspectives. If they are not supported in this endeavor, the learner will achieve only a partial understanding of the material. Multiple modes of representation allow the learner to view the same content through different sensory modes.
4. Nurture reflexivity. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) characterize reflexivity as “the ability of students to be aware of their own role in the knowledge construction process.” (p.172). It could also be described as the learner taking ownership of their own thinking and learning processes. Driscoll (1994) assets that reflexivity and by extension critical thinking are central attributes in the constructivist methodology, as it enables learners to understand how and why cognition creates meaning. This enables learners to attain goals such as reasoning, understanding multiple perspectives, and expressing and defending their own beliefs.
5. The last condition Driscoll describes is to “emphasize student-centred instruction.” Bruner (1966) calls this “discovery learning”. By obtaining knowledge by themselves, learners select and transform information, construct knowledge, and make decisions in the context of a cognitive structure that provides meaning and organization to experiences and allows the individual to “go beyond the information given”. Students are actively engaged in determining what and how they will study or gain understanding.

These principles and conditions position the constructivist approach to learning as an appropriate orientation for learning sans frontiers; using technologies like the Internet, websites and virtual learning environments, applying collaborative learning, problem-based learning and goal-based mechanisms, making Open Source Software and Course- and Content Management Systems accessible to learners, and using e-learning applications like online conferencing and collaboration tools could be the foundation for these multiple constructivist conditions for learning. (Duffy & Cunningham 1996, Driscoll 1994, Schank 1994)

These characteristics provide an appropriate framework for knowledge workers to learn (and for the learning intervention), given that their ongoing development is based in the context of already-established cognitive schemata (from the learners’ perspective), the knowledge and skills are applied to solve real-world problems, and their expertise (behaviors) are typically used in collaboration with their peers to enhance the performance of organizations.

___________

References:

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen D. H. (Ed) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Schank, R. (1994) Active Learning Through Multimedia, IEEE Multimedia, 1(1), pp.69-78.

--

Teaching organizations how to learn. Part 1

Chris Argyris, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, has made significant contributions to the development of organizational learning theory and experiential learning.

Any company that aspires to succeed in the tougher business environment ...must first resolve a basic dilemma: success in the marketplace increasingly depends on learning, yet most people don’t know how to learn. What’s more, those members of the organization that many assume to be the best at learning are, in fact, not very good at it.

(Argyris, C. 1991)

Over the next couple of weeks (taking digressions where appropriate) I will examine the significance of his work (focusing in particular on single-loop and double-loop learning) on organizational learning systems.

Today however, I will begin by reminding you of the basis for Chris Argyris’ work: Constructivism.

In her comprehensive reference text Psychology of learning for instruction, Marcy Driscoll describes constructivism as having

…multiple roots in psychology and philosophy, among which are the cognitive and developmental perspectives of Piaget, the interactional and cultural emphases of Vygotsky and Bruner, the contextual nature of learning, the active learning of Dewey, the epistemological discussions of von Glasersfeld and the paradigm and scientific revolutions of Thomas Kuhn.

(1994, p.375)

Constructivism is an approach to learning based on the premise that cognition, or learning, is the result of mental construction: it is an active process in which learners construct new ideas, skills and behaviors based upon their prior and current knowledge, behavior and skill assets. The learner transforms information, constructs knowledge, and makes decisions based upon extant cognitive structures or mental models. These cognitive structures - what Roger Schank calls “scripts” in his Dynamic Memory Model (1982) - provide meaning and organization to experiences and allow the individual to go “beyond the information given” (Bruner, 1974). Even though there are numerous interpretations of constructivism, several central concepts inhabit all constructivist theories. Cunningham and Duffy (1996) identified two major similarities that are the foundation of all constructivist thought. They are that “learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge” and “instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather that communicating knowledge” (1996, p.172).

Bruner’s 1966 text Toward a Theory of Instruction described the key principles of constructivism (p.225):

Table 1 Principles of constructivism

Principle		Definition
Readiness		Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn
Spiral organization	Structure.	The content must be structured so that it can be grasped by the learner.
	Sequence.	Material must be presented in the most effective sequences.
Generation		“Going beyond the information given” - Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps

Extending from these basic constructivist principles as well as from the work of other key figures in the constructivist school, Driscoll (1994) outlines five conditions for learning (p.382-3). Very much like the multiple approaches and interpretations that exist in constructivism, a number of conditions must be met for the approach to be implemented. It is useful to elaborate briefly on these conditions, as they are relevant to the learning approach discussed in the rest of this series of posts.

…and I will do this tomorrow.

____________________

References:

Argyris, C. (1991) Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Harvard Business Review Reflections 4(2). [Internet]. Available from: http://www.velinperformance.com/downloads/chris_argyris_learning.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2008]

Bruner, J. S. (1974) Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.

Cunningham, D. J. & Duffy, T. M. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen. D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Schank, R. (1982) Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press.

--

Learning - the Zeigarnik effect

Here's an unusual but potentially very useful instructional strategy, one that takes advantage of peoples' need for resolution or for closure. The Zeigarnik effect states that people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones.

Russian psychologies Bluma Zeigarnik first studied the phenomenon in the late 1920's after her professor, Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin, noticed that waiters remembered orders only as long as the order was in the process of being served.

Research indicates that:

1. the Zeigarnik effect is likely to appear if the subject is "ego-involved" in the task to some extent (such as in a learning activity)
2. the effect is more likely to appear if the task doesn't seem to be part of the training plan
3. the effect is most likely to appear if the subject has set a genuine level of aspiration in the interrupted task

Musicians intuitively use this effect when writing musical 'hooks,' or for concluding pieces of music. By using a "suspended" chord, where the third has been displaced by either of its dissonant neighbouring notes, forming intervals of a major second or (more commonly) a perfect fourth with the root. The resulting unexpected dissonance is then satisfyingly resolved by introducing the displaced note.

This can be heard to great effect in the main musical theme of Pinball Wizard by The Who (which transitions from a F#sus4 to a F#maj), or more sophisticatedly, as a plagal or "Amen" cadence in the final phrase of The Beatles' She's Leaving Home, or the coda (with typically Baroque flourishes) of Bach's Canon alla Decima, Contrapuncto alla Terza.

In Gestalt psychology, the Zeigarnik effect has been used to demonstrate the general presence of Gestalt phenomena: not just appearing as perceptual effects, but also present in cognition.

The implication of this is that learners who wish to remember material better should take breaks in unrelated fields or games before completing exercises.

... so the next time you see me playing Civilization 4 when I'm supposed to be writing that white paper, I'm learning.

--

Corporate social networks, long tails, weak ties

Today's post is really a (very) mini case study in the power of integrated corporate social networks, the benefits of long tails in learning, and the strength of weak social ties.

Now read on...

If you're not familiar with the latter two concepts here's a little background: the idea of the strength of weak ties is a theory from sociology; according to its originator Mark Granovetter

the argument asserts that our acquaintances (weak ties) are less likely to be socially involved with one another than are our close friends (strong ties). Thus the set of people made up of any individual and his or her acquaintances comprises a low-density network (one in which many of the possible relational lines are absent) whereas the set consisting of the same individual and his or her close friends will be densely knit (many of the possible lines are present).

It follows, then, that individuals with few weak ties will be deprived of information from distant parts of the social system and will be confined to the provincial news and views of their close friends. This deprivation will [...] insulate them from the latest ideas.

(1983, pp.201-202)

The concept of the long tail is something both Jay Cross and Tony Karrer have recently discussed and is example of how the Web (and particularly Web 2.0 technology) changes the way assets - whether physical artifacts like books, or knowledge and informational assets persist for an extended period beyond their supposed "sell-by" date:

Long tails for the enterprise occur when the power to create and publish is widely held, the content can be distributed at near-zero cost and a market exists that connects knowledge workers with a nearly infinite number of content creators.

(Kilian, D. 2007)

Here's a pertinent example of how these ideas manifest themselves in the workplace: last week, I suffered from a niggly problem with my Outlook e-mail client - it wouldn't poll the Exchange server and update itself every 20 minutes as it was supposed to do. So I logged a snag on the corporate Bugzilla implementation about the issue. The IT person, who I would describe as being a a journeyman level of competence (has passed their certification exams and is no longer a novice, but is not yet an expert) wen though all the things your supposed to do to resolve such issues

• ran ScanPST.exe
• checked my e-mail profile
• consulted MSDN
• looked at forums for similar issues based on the Error ID

... as well as some "beyond the call of duty" activities (a time-consuming MS Office reinstall).

All to no avail.

So I got my laptop back and had resolved myself to living with this seemingly intractable minor inconvenience, when a third contributor (a more knowledgeable IT support person), working from home, happened to encounter the issue when scanning through Bugzilla, entered the discussion with a simple "I know what this is."

So, by accessing my laptop via a PC-sharing application, the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes, after 5 days of dead ends and frustration.

The moral of the story is: by developing a corporate culture that encourages wide-ranging participation, and by providing a corporate knowledge-sharing environment (Bugzilla in this case), you increase the chances that somebody you're associated with, no matter how loosely, will have the appropriate knowledge and expertise to find a solution to an issue. The added learning benefit from the journeyman contributors perspective, is that they have added to their knowledge experientially, by interacting with the More Knowledgeable Other. I would suggest that the knowledge asset acquired by being involved in this problem-solving activity has been aggregated into their personal experience schema, enabling them to grow a little more knowledgeable (or even wiser).

Oh yes... the solution to the Outlook issue?

Delete and recreate your profile in Outlook.

_______________

References:

Cross, J. (2008) Strength of weak knowledge sources. [Internet] Available from: http://internettime.com/2008/04/21/strength-of-weak-knowledge-sources/ Accessed 1 July 2008

Granovetter, M. (1983) The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, Volume 1, 201-233. State University of New York,
Stonybrook. [Internet] Available from: http://www.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/SI110/readings/In_Out_and_Beyond/Granovetter.pdf Accessed 1 July 2008

Karrer, T. (2008) Corporate Learning Long Tail and Attention Crisis : eLearning Technology. [Internet] Available from: http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2008/02/corporate-learning-long-tail-and.html Accessed 1 July 2008

Kilian, D. (2007) The Learning Organization Meets the Long Tail (Part 2). [Internet] Available from:
http://www.clomedia.com/guest-editorial/2007/October/1949/index.php Accessed 1 July 2008

Constructivism, Learning Environments: An Introduction

There are a range of views on what the term ‘constructivism’ means in the context of learning, but it can be said that most definitions would agree that it has these characteristics:

• Learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge and
• Instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge.

(Duffy and Cunningham, 1996. p.171).

Bruner’s 1966 text Toward a Theory of Instruction described the key principles of constructivism (p.225):

Table 1 Principles of constructivism

Principle		Definition
Readiness		Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn
Spiral organisation	Structure.	The content must be structured so that it can be grasped by the learner.
	Sequence.	Material must be presented in the most effective sequences.
Generation		“Going beyond the information given” - Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps

Extending from these basic constructivist principles as well as from the work of other key figures in the constructivist school, Driscoll (1994) outlines five conditions for learning (p.382-3). Very much like the multiple approaches and interpretations that exist in constructivism, a number of conditions must be met for the approach to be implemented. It is useful to elaborate briefly on these conditions, as they are relevant to the learning approach discussed in the rest of this part of the blog.

1. Providing complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity. Constructivists argue that learners should learn to solve the types of complex problem they will face in real life. Learning how to do this is difficult unless complex and authentic learning environments are available to the learners.
2. Providing for social negotiation as an integral part of learning. Bruner (1986) explains that learning is a cultural interchange between group members. Collaboration creates an opportunity for learners to share their understandings with others and to have others do the same with them. This provides multiple perspectives to each learner, and this negotiation process between peers should lead to enhanced understanding.
3. Support multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. Because learning skills, behaviours and knowledge can be diverse and complex, constructivists believe that to achieve complete understanding the learner must examine the material from multiple perspectives. If they are not supported in this endeavour, the learner will achieve only a partial understanding of the material. Multiple modes of representation allow the learner to view the same content through different sensory modes.
4. Nurture reflexivity. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) characterise reflexivity as “the ability of students to be aware of their own role in the knowledge construction process.” (p.172). It could also be described as the learner taking ownership of their own thinking and learning processes. Driscoll (1994) assets that reflexivity and by extension critical thinking are central attributes in the constructivist methodology, as it enables learners to understand how and why cognition creates meaning. This enables learners to attain goals such as reasoning, understanding multiple perspectives, and expressing and defending their own beliefs.
5. The last condition Driscoll describes is to “emphasise student-centred instruction.” Bruner (1966) calls this “discovery learning”. By obtaining knowledge by themselves, learners select and transform information, construct knowledge, and make decisions in the context of a cognitive structure that provides meaning and organisation to experiences and allows the individual to “go beyond the information given”. Students are actively engaged in determining what and how they will study or gain understanding.

These principles and conditions position the constructivist approach to learning as an appropriate orientation for learning sans frontiers; using technologies like the Internet, websites and virtual learning environments, applying collaborative learning, problem-based learning and goal-based mechanisms, making Open Source Software and Course- and Content Management Systems accessible to learners, and using e-learning applications like online conferencing and collaboration tools could be the foundation for these multiple constructivist conditions for learning. (Duffy & Jonassen 1992, Driscoll 1994; Schank 1994)

These characteristics provide an appropriate framework for knowledge workers to learn (and for the learning intervention), given that their ongoing development is based in the context of already-established cognitive schemata (from the learners’ perspective), the knowledge and skills are applied to solve real-world problems, and their expertise (behaviours) are typically used in collaboration with their peers to enhance the performance of organisations.

___________________

References:

Bruner, J. S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen D. H. (Ed) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Jonassen, D. H., (1994). Thinking Technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(3), 34-37.

Schank, R. (1994) Active Learning Through Multimedia, IEEE Multimedia, 1(1), pp.69-78.

--

An Open Environment for E-Learning Course Development: Project Lifecycle 2

Phase One: Using a Constructivist Theoretical Approach

Bruner’s 1966 text Toward a Theory of Instruction described the key principles of constructivism (p.225):

Table 1 Principles of constructivism

Principle		Definition
Readiness		Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn
Spiral organisation	Structure.	The content must be structured so that it can be grasped by the learner.
	Sequence.	Material must be presented in the most effective sequences.
Generation		“Going beyond the information given” - Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps

Extending from these basic constructivist principles as well as from the work of other key figures in the constructivist school, Driscoll (1994) outlines five conditions for learning (p.382-3). Very much like the multiple approaches and interpretations that exist in constructivism, a number of conditions must be met for the approach to be implemented. It is useful to elaborate briefly on these conditions, as they are relevant to the learning approach discussed in the rest of this part of the blog.

1. Providing complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity. Constructivists argue that learners should learn to solve the types of complex problem they will face in real life. Learning how to do this is difficult unless complex and authentic learning environments are available to the learners.
2. Providing for social negotiation as an integral part of learning. Bruner (1986) explains that learning is a cultural interchange between group members. Collaboration creates an opportunity for learners to share their understandings with others and to have others do the same with them. This provides multiple perspectives to each learner, and this negotiation process between peers should lead to enhanced understanding.
3. Support multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. Because learning skills, behaviours and knowledge can be diverse and complex, constructivists believe that to achieve complete understanding the learner must examine the material from multiple perspectives. If they are not supported in this endeavour, the learner will achieve only a partial understanding of the material. Multiple modes of representation allow the learner to view the same content through different sensory modes.
4. Nurture reflexivity. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) characterise reflexivity as “the ability of students to be aware of their own role in the knowledge construction process.” (p.172). It could also be described as the learner taking ownership of their own thinking and learning processes. Driscoll (1994) assets that reflexivity and by extension critical thinking are central attributes in the constructivist methodology, as it enables learners to understand how and why cognition creates meaning. This enables learners to attain goals such as reasoning, understanding multiple perspectives, and expressing and defending their own beliefs.
5. The last condition Driscoll describes is to “emphasise student-centred instruction.” Bruner (1966) calls this “discovery learning”. By obtaining knowledge by themselves, learners select and transform information, construct knowledge, and make decisions in the context of a cognitive structure that provides meaning and organisation to experiences and allows the individual to “go beyond the information given”. Students are actively engaged in determining what and how they will study or gain understanding.

These principles and conditions position the constructivist approach to learning as an appropriate orientation for learning sans frontiers; using technologies like the Internet, websites and virtual learning environments, applying collaborative learning, problem-based learning and goal-based mechanisms, making Open Source Software and Course- and Content Management Systems accessible to learners, and using e-learning applications like online conferencing and collaboration tools could be the foundation for these multiple constructivist conditions for learning. (Duffy & Jonassen 1992, Driscoll 1994; Schank 1994)

These characteristics provide an appropriate framework for knowledge workers to learn (and for the learning intervention), given that their ongoing development is based in the context of already-established cognitive schemata (from the learners’ perspective), the knowledge and skills are applied to solve real-world problems, and their expertise (behaviours) are typically used in collaboration with their peers to enhance the performance of organisations.

___________________

References:

Bruner, J. S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen D. H. (Ed) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Schank, R. (1994) Active Learning Through Multimedia, IEEE Multimedia, 1(1), pp.69-78.

Instructional Design 101: Orwell's Five Rules for writing good English

Whatever your views on George Orwell's politics, I hope you agree with me that his writing style is the quintessence of English prose. I think that the influential English author and critic's skills are particularly represented in his essays and short stories.

For no reason other than the relevance of his writing to the art of instructional design, content development and writing for an audience, I have decided to post some extracts from George Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language:

--

"MOST people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent, and our language—so the argument runs—must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

...here are five specimens of the English language as it is now habitually written.
These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad—I could have quoted far worse if I had chosen—but because they illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now suffer. They are a little below the average, but are fairly representative samples. I number them so that I can refer back to them when necessary:

(1) I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien (sic) to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.

Professor Harold Laski (Essay in Freedom of Expression)

(2) Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes such egregious collocations of vocables as the Basic put up with or tolerate or put at a loss or bewilder.

Professor Lancelot Hogben (Interglossa)

(3) On the one side we have the free personality; by definition it is not neurotic, for it has neither conflict nor dream. Its desires, such as they are, are transparent, for they are just what institutional approval keeps in the forefront of consciousness; another institutional pattern would alter their number and intensity; there is little in them that is natural, irreducible, or culturally dangerous. But on the other side, the social bond itself is nothing but the mutual reflection of these self-secure integrities. Recall the definition of love. Is not this the very picture of a small academic? Where is there a place in this hall of mirrors for either personality or fraternity?

Essay on Psychology in Politics (New York)

(4) All the “best people” from the gentlemen’s clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror of the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoisie to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis.

Communist Pamphlet

(5) If a new spirit is to be infused into this old country, there is one thorny and contentious reform which must be tackled, and that is the humanization and galvanization of the B.B.C. Timidity here will bespeak canker and atrophy of the soul. The heart of Britain may be sound and of strong beat, for instance, but the British lion’s roar at present is like that of Bottom in Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream—as gentle as any sucking dove. A virile new Britain cannot continue indefinitely to be traduced in the eyes, or rather ears, of the world by the effete languors of Langham Place, brazenly masquerading as “standard English.” When the Voice of Britain is heard at nine o’clock, better far and infinitely less ludicrous to hear aitches honestly dropped than the present priggish, inflated, inhibited, school-ma’am-ish arch braying of blameless bashful mewing maidens.

Letter in Tribune

Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English:

Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is to surrender them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing, you probably hunt about till you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one’s meaning as clear as one can through pictures or sensations. Afterwards one can choose—not simply accept—the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one’s words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous.

These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in these five specimens at the beginning of this article.

One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase—some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno or other lump of verbal refuse—into the dustbin where it belongs."

--

Constructivism Pt.10: More Mindtools

Significantly, Jonassen et al point out that learning is not restricted to formal learning environments, and that learners can “acquire sophisticated skills and advanced knowledge in natural learning situations" (p. 28).

Table 1 Characteristics of a computer-based learning environment (after Jonassen, 1994)

Characteristic	Definition
Active:	Learners are engaged by the learning process in mindful processing of information where they are responsible for the result. In natural learning situations, learners, without the intervention of formal instruction, can acquire sophisticated skills and advanced knowledge about what they are learning. Through formal and informal apprenticeships and communities, learners develop skills and knowledge which they then share with other members of those communities with whom they learned and practiced those skills. In all of these situations, learners are actively manipulating the objects and tools of the trade and learning by reflecting on what they have done.
Constructive:	Learners integrate new ideas with prior knowledge in order to make sense or make meaning or reconcile a discrepancy, curiosity, or puzzlement. They construct their own meaning for different phenomena. The models that they build to explain things are simple and unsophisticated at first, but with experience, support, and reflection, they become increasingly complex. They can only know what they know, so they should be supported in the process of coming to know.
Collaborative:	Learners naturally work in learning and knowledge building communities, exploiting each other’s skills while providing social support and observing the contributions of each member. Humans naturally seek out others to help them to solve problems and perform tasks.
Intentional:	All human behaviour is goal-directed (Cleary & Schank, 1995). That is, everything that we do is intended to fulfil some goal. When learners are actively trying to achieve a cognitive goal (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), they think and learn more. Learning environments need to support learners in articulating what their goals are in any learning situation.
Complex:	Teachers oversimplify most ideas in order to make them more easily transferable to learners. In addition to stripping ideas out of their normal contexts, concepts are distilled to their simplest form so that learners will more readily learn them. But the message this gives learners is that t the world is a reliable and simple place. However, the world is not a reliable and simple place. Problems have multiple components and multiple perspectives. They cannot be solved in predictable ways. Learners need to be engaged in solving complex and “ill-structured problems as well as simple problems” (p.31). Unless learners are required to engage in higher-order thinking, they will develop oversimplified views of the world.
Contextual:	A great deal of recent research has shown that learning tasks that are situated in some meaningful real world task or simulated in some case-based or problem based learning environment are not only better understood, but also are more consistently transferred to new situations. Rather than abstracting ideas in rules that are learned by rote and applied to other “canned problems” (p.31), knowledge and skills should be delivered in reality-based, useful contexts and provide new and different contexts for learners to practice using those concepts.
Conversational:	Learning is inherently a social, dialogical process (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). That is, given a problem or task, people naturally seek out opinions and ideas form others. Technologies can support this conversational process by connecting learners across an organisation or across the world. When learners become part of knowledge-building communities they learn that there are multiple ways of viewing the world and multiple solutions to most of its problems.
Reflective:	Learners should be required by technology-based learning to articulate their actions, the decisions they make, the strategies the use, and the solutions that are generated. When they articulate what they have learned and reflect on the processes and decisions that were entailed by the process, they understand more and are better able to use the knowledge that they have constructed in new situations.

The implications of placing learners in this technology-based environment fundamentally affect pedagogical approaches to learning. An interesting subtext to this approach may be the design of the internet itself: as Agre (1999, p.3) points out, the Internet was originally designed for the scientific community. As a result, its underlying design features reflect that community's high capacity for self-regulation and openness. Applications can be used to represent knowledge that is generalisable to content in different subjects; learners are engaged in critical thinking about the subject; and, as skills are integrated into the learner’s schemata, they become transferable to other subjects (1996). From a practical viewpoint, Mindtools can be developed for applications the learner is already familiar with, and that are non-content specific - the classic example Jonassen gives is semantic organisation using databases (1998). Similarly, computers and the internet enable the learner to engage with microworlds that allow the learner to experience multiple representations or simulation of real-world phenomena and which provide immediate feedback when learners attempt to solve problems (1996).

References:

Agre, P. E. (1999). Life after cyberspace. EASST Review, 18(2), pp.3-5.

Carr, C. Jonassen, D. H. & Hsiu-Ping, Y. (1998) Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking [Internet] TechTrends 43(2). pp.24-32. March 1998

Constructivism Pt.9: Mindtools cont'd

David H Jonassen, with his colleagues Chad Carr and Hsiu-Ping Yeuh in Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking, (1998) proposes that learning is an active and creative process in that information is processed “mindfully” (p.30), since the learner not only collects information but also constructs a format for representing that information and transforming it into knowledge rather than merely aggregating units of information. This active creation of knowledge reflects the learner's particular understanding and conception of the information, their own act of [knowledge] creation requires a relevant, environmental context.

Jonassen argues that while there are

numerous solutions to over-reliance on single formalisms for knowledge representation, an effective method (though not the only method) for supporting the representation of learner knowledge through multiple formalisms is to use computers as Mindtools to represent their knowledge. Mindtools are knowledge construction tools that learners learn with, not from. In this way, learners function as interpreters, organizers, and designers of their personal knowledge. Each Mindtool uses a different formalism for representing learners' knowledge, engaging a different set of critical cognitive skills.

(2000, p.1)

He posits that technology, and particularly networked computers provide an appropriate environment for Mindtools to function. Jonassen (1994) identifies eight characteristics of the constructivist learning environment (see Table 1). Computer-based technologies should be used to keep learners active, constructive, collaborative, intentional, complex, contextual, conversational, and reflective (pp.28-32) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 the cognitive web (“Design of constructivist learning environments,” 2007)

References:

Carr, C. Jonassen, D. H. & Hsiu-Ping, Y. (1998) Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking [Internet] TechTrends 43(2). pp.24-32. March 1998

Constructivism Pt.8: Mindtools

In 2001, David Jonassen argued that “most e-learning replicates the worst features of face-to-face instruction. So, it may be cheaper to ‘deliver’ knowledge over the Internet, but it will not be more effective” (“Interview with Professor David Jonassen”, 2001). He correctly identified that at the time e-learning was on the ascender of the hype curve, and that e-learning was being perceived as the latest panacea for all of businesses ills (2001). He considered that one of the elements of “substantive change in businesses and universities is to care enough about learning to invest the effort to truly understand its requirements and to create meaningful learning experiences to engage them” (2001). However, as businesses in particular, but also third-level institutions operate from the demands of the “bottom line …meaningful learning” (2001) was seen as being simply too expensive to produce. “So, both entities tell their learners about the world and expect them to fill in all of the gaps required to be able to practice” (2001). His analysis and experience of the e-learning industry in the period 1995-2002 reflects Jonassen’s observations; many, if not most, e-learning content production organisations approached the process of producing content as simply ‘webifying’ extant static content.

If I may digress for a moment I’d like to give you an example of this approach. The Irish e-learning company the Educational Multimedia Group (EMG) – where I served as Digital Media Manager from 1999 until 2002 – developed Microsoft Office User Specialist (MOUS) and European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) courseware. Significant resources in the company were dedicated to the task of extracting static content from tests published by content partner Pearson Publishing and their subsidiaries Que Books and SAMS and ‘making it move.’ Content was authored in Macromedia Authorware 5 and adhered to a very linear learning model: The learner was ‘locked in’ to the content delivery mechanism with little opportunity to explore the content except via the channels facilitated by the format of the content. In many ways, the content replicated a textual approach to information delivery – the learner could move forward or backwards (as one does with a book), could navigate between lessons and so forth, but the real potential inherent in multimedia and multimodal delivery of content was not actualised. The learner typically used the courseware in isolation, with little interaction with fellow learners, and while an attempt was made to integrate an electronic performance support system (EPSS), it was not integrated into the actual application the learner was studying, but into a simulacrum of the application available on a CD-ROM that needed to be loaded into the system and launched as a separate program to be utilised. While this approach represented the state of the art at the time, the learner was presented with non-contiguous, fragmentary and even arbitrary (in that the designers were constrained to develop within the limitations of the resources at their disposal) courseware that did not provide the level of learning reinforcement and support – the authenticity that constructivists deem a prerequisite for effective learning – as from this perspective, there was an implicit assumption that learner could abstract the appropriate knowledge into an environment where it could be used (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989, p.32). This “breach between learning and use” (p.32) is, the authors of Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning contend, is a consequence of the “didactic systems” (p.32) operated by educational institutions, where knowledge is treated “as an integral, self-sufficient substance” without contextual meaning.

References:

Brown, J. S. Collins, C. & Duguid (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning [Internet] Educational Researcher 18(1), pp. 32-42, Jan-Feb 1989. Available from: http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/%7Ejonassen/courses/CLE/index.html [Accessed January 12th 2007]

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]

Constructivism Pt.7: Social Learning cont'd

In terms of a learner’s cognitive development, Vygotsky's argues that learning precedes development. As developmental processes lag behind learning processes, less experienced or developed individuals can often carry out tasks with the help of others when they could not accomplish these tasks independently. The knowledge, behaviours and skills that learners demonstrate when assisted are actually in the process of becoming internalised in the learner’s schemata - the script is being written.

As in Kolb’s and Fry’s four-stage cycle, this is a recursive process: unlike the experiential model though, the dialectic “tension” is a social discourse between the learner and the MKO, rather than the modes described in the experiential model. Vygotsky (1978) maintains that cognitive development occurs in this area of the learning continuum in what he calls the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD). The ZPD is the gap between a learner's actual development level and the learner's potential level of development. Vygotsky described the ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (1978, p.86). This process of learning and encoding knowledge is analogous to some of Gagné’s Events of Learning (1985), where the MKO presents a learning stimulus, guides learning through example, elicits performance from the learner and provides feedback. Similarly, it provides a theoretical foundation for Bruner’s concept of instructional scaffolding - the learner current level of knowledge can an edifice that represents their cognitive abilities. Mayes and de Freitas (2005) describe the scaffolding as “a means of exploiting the ZPD” (p.19). The cognitive scaffold surrounds what is already known and can be done. The new is built on top of the known as the learner develops, and over time the supports can be removed as the learner can independently actualise the knowledge, behaviour or skill. Each new learned skill asset becomes a level in the learner’s constructed schema and this becomes the foundation for extending the learner’s ongoing development.

Figure 1 Zone of Proximal Development

The concepts of the ZPD and scaffolding are central to how individuals develop using e-learning: how these concepts can be implemented will be explored in a later blog entry.

References:

de Freitas, S. & Mayes, T. (2005). JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study Stage 2: Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. [Online] London, JISC. Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/
Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20(Version%201).pdf
[Accessed 15th January 2007]

Fry, R. & Kolb, D. A. (1975) Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning. IN: Theory of Group Processes. (Cooper, C. ed). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc

Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. Edited by Cole, M. John-Steiner, V. Scribner, Souberman, E. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

Constructivism Pt.6: Social Learning

As I will discuss in a later blog entry, I believe that knowledge working is intimately bound within the organisational context: knowledge workers use their skills and experience to innovate solutions to real-world problems. One of the primary conditions of knowledge working is the social aspect – knowledge workers typically collaborate with their peers, whether they are individuals with similar skill assets, such as application development teams working in an agile software development environment, or in project teams which require knowledge workers from different disciplines (technical architects, business analysts, and product consultants, for example) to cooperate in the implementation of the solutions on a customer site. Within any given organisation then, knowledge workers evolve a culture – what Bates and Plog (1990) define as “the system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted through learning [my italics]” (p.7) - to enable groups to perform tasks within the context of the organisation. Recognition of the social and interactive nature of knowledge working is one of the key drivers for the live component of the "Information Sessions" I developed for one organisation I am associated with (this will be discussed in more detail at a later time): at any given time, individual workers in an organisation have more-or-less tacit and explicit knowledge on a given topic than their co-workers, and collectively a very high level of expertise across a range of topics exists.

So, one of the goals of the Information Sessions is to create an learning environment that integrates Jonassen’s eight characteristics for constructivist learning and where an individual’s expertise could manifest itself through various artifacts of learning (presentations, demonstrations and so on) and through debate and discussion be transmitted to their peer group. This combination of artifacts and dialogue creates a socially mediated environment where new knowledge is constructed for both the individual learner and for the group; as John F. Kennedy asserted in 1962 “a rising tide lifts all boats” (Oxford Library of Words and Phrases, 1981, p.141). This methodology aligns with the Social Constructivist approach to learning. As Lev Vygotsky, one of social constructivism’s main proponents asserted learning is mediated through social interaction of learners and what Driscoll (1994) called More Knowledgeable Others (MKOs) – more experienced peers, mentors, instructors and so on. At any point in the learning process, the learner experiences threes states:

1. Knowledge, skills and tasks already learned, that can be performed independently by the learner
2. those that cannot be performed even with help
3. those that fall between the two extremes - activities that can be performed with help from others
   
   

References:

Bates, D, G. & Plog F. (1990) Cultural Anthropology. 3rd ed. Berkshire, McGraw-Hill College

Brown, J. S. Collins, C. & Duguid (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning [Internet] Educational Researcher 18(1), pp. 32-42, Jan-Feb 1989. Available from: http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/%7Ejonassen/courses/CLE/index.html [Accessed January 12th 2007]

Characteristics of Constructivism (2004) Internet. Available from: http://www.worc.ac.uk/LTMain/LTC/StaffDev/
Constructivism/Characteristics.html [Accessed 7th January 2008]

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]

Oxford Library of Words and Phrases, Vol. 1. (1981). Oxford University Press

Constructivism Pt.3: The principles of constructivism

Bruner’s 1966 text Toward a Theory of Instruction described the key principles of constructivism (p.225):

Table 1 Principles of constructivism

Principle		Definition
Readiness		Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn
Spiral organisation	Structure.	The content must be structured so that it can be grasped by the learner.
	Sequence.	Material must be presented in the most effective sequences.
Generation		“Going beyond the information given” - Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps

Extending from these basic constructivist principles as well as from the work of other key figures in the constructivist school, Driscoll (1994) outlines five conditions for learning (p.382-3). Very much like the multiple approaches and interpretations that exist in constructivism, a number of conditions must be met for the approach to be implemented. It is useful to elaborate briefly on these conditions, as they are relevant to the learning approach discussed in the rest of this part of the blog.

1. Providing complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity. Constructivists argue that learners should learn to solve the types of complex problem they will face in real life. Learning how to do this is difficult unless complex and authentic learning environments are available to the learners.
2. Providing for social negotiation as an integral part of learning. Bruner (1986) explains that learning is a cultural interchange between group members. Collaboration creates an opportunity for learners to share their understandings with others and to have others do the same with them. This provides multiple perspectives to each learner, and this negotiation process between peers should lead to enhanced understanding.
3. Support multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. Because learning skills, behaviours and knowledge can be diverse and complex, constructivists believe that to achieve complete understanding the learner must examine the material from multiple perspectives. If they are not supported in this endeavour, the learner will achieve only a partial understanding of the material. Multiple modes of representation allow the learner to view the same content through different sensory modes.
4. Nurture reflexivity. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) characterise reflexivity as “the ability of students to be aware of their own role in the knowledge construction process.” (p.172). It could also be described as the learner taking ownership of their own thinking and learning processes. Driscoll (1994) assets that reflexivity and by extension critical thinking are central attributes in the constructivist methodology, as it enables learners to understand how and why cognition creates meaning. This enables learners to attain goals such as reasoning, understanding multiple perspectives, and expressing and defending their own beliefs.
5. The last condition Driscoll describes is to “emphasise student-centred instruction.” Bruner (1966) calls this “discovery learning”. By obtaining knowledge by themselves, learners select and transform information, construct knowledge, and make decisions in the context of a cognitive structure that provides meaning and organisation to experiences and allows the individual to “go beyond the information given”. Students are actively engaged in determining what and how they will study or gain understanding.

These principles and conditions position the constructivist approach to learning as an appropriate orientation for learning sans frontiers; using technologies like the Internet, websites and virtual learning environments, applying collaborative learning, problem-based learning and goal-based mechanisms, making Open Source Software and Course- and Content Management Systems accessible to learners, and using e-learning applications like online conferencing and collaboration tools could be the foundation for these multiple constructivist conditions for learning. (Duffy & Jonassen 1992, Driscoll 1994; Schank 1994)

These characteristics provide an appropriate framework for knowledge workers to learn (and for the learning intervention), given that their ongoing development is based in the context of already-established cognitive schemata (from the learners’ perspective), the knowledge and skills are applied to solve real-world problems, and their expertise (behaviours) are typically used in collaboration with their peers to enhance the performance of organisations.

References

Bruner, J. S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen D. H. (Ed) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Schank, R. (1994) Active Learning Through Multimedia, IEEE Multimedia, 1(1), pp.69-78.